Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

160455 May 9, 2005 ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY and ED IN P. !ERNA", petitioners, vs. #OVITA S. MANA"O, respondent. D !ISION DAVIDE, #R., C.J.$ In this petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, petitioners ur%e this !ourt to reverse the Resolutions of &' (anuar) &**' and *' October &**' of the !ourt of +ppeals , i%hth Division-, "hich, respectivel), dis.issed, insofar as petitioners are concerned, the petition for certiorari doc/eted as !.+.01.R. SP No. 2#344 and entitled "Ateneo de Naga University, Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J., and Mr. Edwin P. Bernal vs. on. National !abor "elations #o$$ission and Jovita S. Manalo" on the %round that the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% "as si%ned onl) b) Fr. Tabora, and denied the .otion to reconsider the for.er. The controvers) ste..ed fro. the co.plaint for constructive dis.issal, "ith pra)er for .oral and e5e.plar) da.a%es and attorne)6s fees, filed b) respondent "ith the Sub0 Re%ional +rbitration 7ranch No. $ of the National 8abor Relations !o..ission ,N8R!in Na%a !it) a%ainst petitioners +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) ,+DN9- and Dean d"in P. 7ernal of +DN96s !olle%e of !o..erce, and +DN9 President Fr. (oel Tabora, S.(. This co.plaint "as doc/eted as Sub0R+7 *$0*#0**::30**. In its decision of :' Dece.ber &***,: 8abor +rbiter (esus Orlando M. ;ui<ones rendered =ud%.ent a%ainst petitioners and Fr. Tabora. The labor arbiter found respondent to have been constructivel) dis.issed "hen she "as transferred fro. the +ccountanc) Depart.ent of the !olle%e of !o..erce to the Depart.ent of Social Sciences of the !olle%e of +rts and Sciences of petitioner +DN9 after bein% char%ed "ith alle%ed .is.ana%e.ent of the +teneo de Na%a Multi0Purpose !ooperative. The labor arbiter did not, ho"ever, a"ard .oral and e5e.plar) da.a%es to respondent. On appeal b) the contendin% parties, the N8R! affir.ed in toto the decision of the labor arbiter and denied the .otion for reconsideration filed b) petitioners and Fr. Tabora in its resolution of &> March &**&& and '* +u%ust &**&,' respectivel). ?ence, petitioners and Fr. Tabora filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals on && Nove.ber &**& a petition for certiorariunder Rule >$ of the Rules of !ourt ascribin% %rave abuse of discretion a.ountin% to lac/ or e5cess of =urisdiction on the part of the N8R!. The petition "as doc/eted as !+ 0 1.R. SP No. 2#344. ?o"ever, as stated at the outset, the !ourt of +ppeals dis.issed the said petition in a Resolution dated &' (anuar) &**', findin% the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% attached to the petition to have been si%ned onl) b) Fr. Tabora, thus@ The instant petition for certiorari is outri%htl) DISMISS D, as its verification and

certification a%ainst non0foru. shoppin% are si%ned b) onl) one of the three petitioners. In Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62 [2 !", it "as held that all petitioners .ust be si%natories to the certification of non0foru. shoppin% unless one is authoriAed b) the other petitioners. Other"ise, the petition is fatall) defective. So ordered.# On :' Februar) &**', Petitioners and Fr. Tabora filed a .otion for reconsideration $ of the fore%oin% resolution on the %round that Fr. Tabora si%ned the verification and certification of non0foru. shoppin% not onl) for hi.self but also for petitioners herein. Petitioners e5plained that as president of +DN9, Fr. Tabora "as its official representative, and in such capacit), he "as dul) authoriAed to si%n for and in its behalf. 8i/e"ise, petitioners ar%ued that Fr. Tabora "as dul) authoriAed b) petitioner 7ernal to si%n for and in his behalf, as evidenced b) the Special Po"er of +ttorne)> dated :3 Nove.ber &**&, "hich the) ad.it to have inadvertentl) failed to attach to their petition for certiorari and "hich the) onl) attached to their .otion for reconsideration. On &2 (une &**', respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration "ith Motion to +d.it Opposition dated &> (une &**', 2 assertin% that "ith respect to petitioner +DN9, no secretar)6s certificate or board resolution authoriAin% Fr. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari "as attached to the .otion for reconsiderationB neither "as there an alle%ation to the effect that Fr. Tabora "as so authoriAed. Cith respect to petitioner 7ernal, respondent contended that even assu.in% that a Special Po"er of +ttorne) "as e5ecuted prior to the filin% of the petition for certiorari, neither petitioner 7ernal nor Fr. Tabora "as authoriAed to file the petition for certiorari for the pri.ar) petitioner, +DN9. On :> (ul) &**', petitioners and Fr. Tabora filed their !o..ent to Opposition and Manifestation "ith Motion to 5pun%e fro. the Records dated *4 (ul) &**',3 pra)in% that respondent6s opposition be re.oved fro. the records for havin% been filed out of ti.e and reiteratin% their .otion for reconsideration of the !ourt of +ppeals6 &' (anuar) &**' Resolution. +t the sa.e ti.e, petitioners and Fr. Tabora attached to their co..ent ,:- a Secretar)6s !ertificate dated *> Nove.ber &**&4 attestin% to a *# Nove.ber &**& resolution of +DN96s 7oard of Trustees authoriAin% Fr. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari and si%n the verification and certificate of non0foru. shoppin%, and ,&- a Secretar)6s !ertificate dated *2 (ul) &**':* attestin% to a resolution of +DN96s 7oard of Trustees on even date ratif)in% Fr. Tabora6s acts in connection "ith the filin% of the petition forcertiorari, in particular his si%nin% of the certificate of non0foru. shoppin%. In her Repl) to !o..ent to Opposition and Manifestation and Opposition to Motion to 5pun%e fro. the Records "ith Motion to 5pun%e !o..ent of the Petitioners dated :# (ul) &**',:: respondent called attention to the failure of petitioners and Fr. Tabora to .ention the certificates in their petition for certiorari and .otion for reconsideration. She also noted that in the said .otion, petitioners stron%l) ar%ued that Fr. Tabora had authorit) to represent +DN9 in his capacit) as president and not on the basis of an) secretar)6s certificate.

On *' October &**', the !ourt of +ppeals, unconvinced b) petitioners6 ar%u.ents and the docu.ents the) presented, issued a resolution den)in% the .otion for reconsideration insofar as petitioners are concerned but %rantin% it relative to Fr. Tabora. It ruled@ DIn a .ore recent case, ho"ever, Loquias "as .odified "hen the ?i%h !ourt ruled@ EThe %reater interest of =ustice "ould be served if the petition for certiorari filed b) petitioners before the !ourt of +ppeals is ad=udicated on its .erits "ith respect to the three petitioners "ho have si%ned the verification and certification on non0foru. shoppin%Dthan to .a/e the. all pa) for the failure of their co0petitionerDto observe his o"n co.pliance "ith the rules. The three petitioners "ho have faithfull) observed the rules .andated in Section $, Rule 2 of the :442 Rules of !ivil Procedure, b) si%nin% the reFuisite verification and certification on non0foru. shoppin%, should not be undul) pre=udiced b) the fault of their co0petitioner "ho apparentl) has lost interest in pursuin% his case.E (#ie$ v. %&is Secu&it' S'stems( )nc.( *.R. +o. ,--8.-( A/&i$ 3( 2 3" +ccordin%l), the above dis.issal order is hereb) RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE, onl) insofar as the si%nin% petitioner, Fr. (oel Tabora, S.(. is concerned. +s to the other t"o ,&- petitioners, +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) and d"in P. 7ernal, the dis.issal STANDS. It should be noted that Ce are not persuaded b) the late filin% of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) e5ecuted b) 7ernal in favor of Fr. TaboraD.The sa.e is true "ith the t"o ,&Secretar)6s !ertificates D. For if indeed said e.po"er.ents "ere e5istin% before the filin% hereof, it should have been .entioned in the petition. None "as alle%ed in the petition. Moreover, Ce cannot see an) reason "h) despite havin% priorl) authoriAed Fr. Tabora and 7ernal on Nove.ber >, &**& to file the petition at bar, on (ul) 2, &**', the sa.e 7oard of Trustees "ill unani.ousl) pass and adopt another si.ilar resolution of authorit) to Fr. Tabora and 7ernal. Note"orth) too is that the Secretar)6s !ertificate dated Nove.ber >, &**& "as never .entioned in petitioners6 Motion for Reconsideration thereb) puttin% the sa.e on hi%h suspicion. +!!ORDIN18G, petitioners6 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED insofar as petitioners +teneo de Na%a 9niversit) and d"in P. 7ernal are concerned, "hile the sa.e is GRANTED relative to petitioner Fr. (oel Tabora, and this petition is ordered REINSTATED as far as he is concerned. D:&

Petitioners then filed "ith this !ourt the petition at bar. The) alle%e therein that the !ourt of +ppeals co..itted %ross and pre=udicial error in dis.issin% the petition as far as the) "ere concerned. The) ar%ue that the) and Fr. Tabora share a co..on interest in the sub=ect .atter of !+01.R. SP No. 2#344, that the) collectivel) filed the petition to uphold their co..on interest, and that the) have substantiall) co.plied "ith Section ', Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt b) subseFuentl) presentin% proof that Fr. Tabora "as authoriAed to si%n the certificate of non0foru. shoppin% on their behalf. Thus, the) assert

that such dis.issal "as irre%ular and not in confor.it) "ith the applicable decisions of this !ourt. In her !o..ent,:' respondent clai.s that petitioners and Fr. Tabora do not share a co..on interest as not all of the. "ere ad=ud%ed liable b) the labor arbiter and the N8R!. Onl) petitioner +DN9 "as held liable for the relief %rantedB as such, petitioner 7ernal and Fr. Tabora have no cause of action a%ainst either respondent or the N8R!. Respondent further averred that petitioners cannot invo/e substantial co.pliance "ith Section ', Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt as their belated sub.ission of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) and Secretar)6s !ertificates "as hi%hl) suspect. +s re%ards the certificates, respondent additionall) declared their sub.ission to be evidentl) an afterthou%ht as the) "ere put for"ard onl) after respondent repeatedl) pointed out the absence of authorit) of Fr. Tabora. +fter the filin% b) petitioners of the Repl) to the !o..ent, the !ourt %ave due course to the petition and reFuired the parties to sub.it their respective .e.oranda, "hich the) later did. Once a%ain, this !ourt is confronted "ith the Fuestion of "hether the !ourt of +ppeals correctl) dis.issed the petition for certiorari insofar as petitioners are concerned for lac/ of proper verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%. Specificall), the proble. in this case is not the lac/ of verification and certification but the adeFuac) of one e5ecuted b) onl) one of three petitioners in the !ourt of +ppeals. Invo/in% substantial co.pliance, petitioners are as/in% this !ourt to te.per the application of the rules on verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% to forestall the dis.issal of their petition before the !ourt of +ppeals. This !ourt finds .erit in the instant petition. T"o separate rules co.e to pla) in the case at hand H one, on verification, under Section #, Rule 2 of the Rules of !ourtB and t"o, on the certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%, under Section ', Rule #> of the Rules of !ourt. +s re%ards the verification reFuire.ent, this !ourt e5plained in Torres vs. S%eciali&ed Pac'aging (evelo%$ent #or%oration:# that such reFuire.ent is dee.ed substantiall) co.plied "ith "hen, as in that case, t"o out of &$ real parties0in0interest, "ho undoubtedl) have sufficient /no"led%e and belief to s"ear to the truth of the alle%ations in the petition, si%ned the verification attached to it. Such verification is dee.ed sufficient assurance that the .atters alle%ed in the petition have been .ade in %ood faith or are true and correct, not .erel) speculative.:$ +ppl)in% the fore%oin% to the instant petition, this !ourt finds that, at the .ini.u., the lone si%nature of Fr. Tabora is sufficient to fulfill the verification reFuire.ent. 9ndoubtedl), Fr. Tabora, "hose acts as president of petitioner +DN9 are in issue, is a real part)0in0interest. +s +DN96s president and hi.self a part) to the instant case, Fr. Tabora has sufficient /no"led%e to s"ear to the truth of the alle%ations in their petition for certiorarifiled "ith the !ourt of +ppeals. ?is si%nature, therefore, is sufficient assurance that the alle%ations in their petition have been .ade in %ood faith or are true and correct, not .erel) speculative. In fact, the si%nature of Fr. Tabora is sufficient to stand for petitioners +DN9 and 7ernal. +lthou%h belatedl) sho"n, the authorit) of Fr. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners is apparent fro. the record.

Thus, attached to petitioners6 .otion for reconsideration "as a Special Po"er of +ttorne):> dated :3 Nove.ber &**&, and to their !o..ent to Opposition and Manifestation "ith Motion to 5pun%e fro. the Records dated *4 (ul) &**' "ere attached the Secretar)6s !ertificates:2 sho"in% that +DN96s 7oard of Trustees authoriAed Fr. Tabora to file the petition for certiorari and si%n the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% and ratified Fr. Tabora6s acts in connection "ith the filin% of said petition. Chile these docu.ents "ere not attached to the petition for certiorari filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals and "ere sub.itted onl) after the filin% of said petition, the) nonetheless confir. the authorit) of Fr. Tabora to act on behalf of petitioners in filin% the petition. Respondent assails the authorit) of Fr. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners in vie" of the belated filin% of the Special Po"er of +ttorne) dated :3 Nove.ber &**& and the t"o secretar)6s certificates, "hich respondent asserts as suspect. In effect, respondent "ould have this !ourt discredit these docu.ents to render baseless the supposed authorit) of Fr. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners. This !ourt, ho"ever, is not persuaded. +n) suspicion on the authenticit) and due e5ecution of the special po"er of attorne) and the t"o secretar)6s certificates, "hich are notariAed docu.ents H and as such, public docu.ents H cannot stand a%ainst the presu.ption of re%ularit) in their favor absent evidence that is clear, convincin%, and .ore than .erel) preponderant.:3 The rule of lon% standin% is that a public docu.ent e5ecuted and attested throu%h the intervention of a notar) public is evidence of the facts in a clear, uneFuivocal .anner therein e5pressed.:4 In the instant case, e5cept for respondent6s bare alle%ations to cast doubt on these docu.ents, there "as no evidence adduced in support thereof. +bsent such evidence, the presu.ption .ust stand and the special po"er of attorne) and secretar)6s certificates .ust be upheld. !onsiderin% the fore%oin%, this !ourt finds Fr. Tabora to be dul) authoriAed to si%n on behalf of petitioners the verification attached to their petition for certiorari, and, for the sa.e reason, the certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%. It appearin% that Fr. Tabora "as, in fact, a dul) authoriAed si%nator), it can be said that there "as at least substantial co.pliance "ith, and that there "as no atte.pt to i%nore, the prescribed procedural reFuire.ents.&*The dela) in the presentation of the docu.ents sho"in% the authorit) of Fr. Tabora to si%n on behalf of petitioners cannot be allo"ed to defeat the petition for certiorari filed "ith the !ourt of +ppeals. 7) the ti.e the !ourt of +ppeals resolved to uphold its dis.issal of the petition as to the., the) had alread) sub.itted proof of their confer.ent upon Fr. Tabora of the authorit) to si%n the verification and certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%. Such dis.issal e5alts technicalit) over substantial ri%ht, "hich this !ourt cannot countenance. Ti.e and a%ain, this !ourt has held that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial =ustice. 7ein% instru.ents for the speed) and efficient ad.inistration of =ustice, the) .ust be used to achieve such end, not to derail it. &: In particular, "hen a strict and literal application of the rules on non0foru. shoppin% and verification "ill

result in a patent denial of substantial =ustice, these .a) be liberall) construed.&& Moreover, as re%ards the certification a%ainst foru. shoppin%, this !ourt has rela5ed, under =ustifiable circu.stances, the rule reFuirin% the sub.ission of such certification considerin% that althou%h it is obli%ator), it is not =urisdictional. &' This !ourt has also applied the rule of substantial co.pliance under =ustifiable circu.stances "ith respect to the contents of the certification.&# If this !ourt has, in previous rulin%s, allo"ed the belated filin% of the certification a%ainst foru. shoppin% for co.pellin% reasons, "ith .ore reason should it sanction the ti.el) sub.ission of such certification albeit the proof of authorit) of the si%nator) "as put for"ard onl) after. The outri%ht dis.issal of the petition for certiorari as far as petitioners are concerned "ould defeat the ad.inistration of =ustice and result in a patent denial of substantial =ustice. The reinstate.ent of said petition is "arranted b) the substantial ri%ht and freedo. involved H the ri%ht of e.plo)ees, on the one hand, and the acade.ic freedo. of educational institutions, on the other hand. 7oth petitioners 7ernal and +DN9 have substantial interests to protect as their ver) acts are the ones sub=ect of the petition before the !ourt of +ppeals. Moreover, petitioner +DN9 is an indispensable part) "ithout "ho. no final deter.ination can be had of said petition. &$ In fact, petitioner +DN9 "as the one specificall) ordered b) the N8R! to ,:- i..ediatel) reinstate respondent to her for.er position or, at the option of respondent, effect pa)roll reinstate.entB ,&- effect and pa) respondent6s additional annual across the board increase of salar), allo"ances, and benefits or their .onetar) eFuivalentB and ,'- pa) respondent ten percent of the total a.ount a"arded representin% attorne)6s fees.&> The ends of =ustice are better served "hen cases are deter.ined on the .erits H after all parties are %iven full opportunit) to ventilate their causes and defenses H rather than on technicalit) or so.e procedural i.perfections.&2 +ccordin%l), the petition for certiorari before the !ourt of +ppeals should be reinstated for proper deter.ination of the substantive issues. %ERE&ORE, the instant petition is 1R+NT D. The assailed Resolutions of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+ H 1.R. SP No. 2#344 are S T +SID , and said !+01.R. SP No. 2#344 is ordered R INST+T D as far as petitioners are concerned for further proceedin%s. No pronounce.ent as to costs. SO ORDERED. )*is*$bing, +nares,Santiago, #ar%io, and A&c*na, JJ., concur. &oo'no'() : "ollo, 2'034. & -d., 4*0:*'. ' -d., :*#0:*>. # "ollo, #2. $ -d., :$>0:>#. > -d., :>$0:>>.

2 3

-d., :>40:2&. -d., :2'0:3*. 4 "ollo, :3&. :* -d., :3'. :: -d., &:>0&:3. :& "ollo, #40$:. :' "ollo, :4:0&*:. :# 1.R. No. :#4>'#, *> (ul) &**#. :$ Torres v. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop.ent !orporation, s*%ra., citin% Robern Develop.ent !orporation v. (ud%e ;uitain, '2' Phil. 22', 23> ,:444-. :> "ollo, :>$0:>>. :2 -d., :3&0:3'. :3 +lfarero v. Sevilla, 1.R. No. :#&42#, && Septe.ber &**', #:: S!R+ '32, '4', citin% 1evero v.Inter.ediate +ppellate !ourt, 1.R. No. 22*&4, '* +u%ust :44*, :34 S!R+ &*:, &*>B Rebuldela v.Inter.ediate +ppellate !ourt, No. 802*3$>, :: Nove.ber :432, :$$ S!R+ $&*, $&4. :4 -d., citin% Ia.bo v. !ourt of +ppeals, 1.R. No. :*#:>>, '* (ul) :44', &&# S!R+ 3$$, 3$4. &* 1eneral Millin% !orporation v. National 8abor Relations !o..ission, ##& Phil. #&$, #&2 ,&**&-. &: Torres v. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop.ent !orporation, s*%ra., citin% Far astern Shippin% !o. v.!ourt of +ppeals, '$2 Phil. 2*', 2&* ,:443-. && 7an/ of the Philippine Islands v. !ourt of +ppeals, 1.R. No. :#>4&', '* +pril &**', #*& S!R+ ##4. &' Torres v. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop.ent !orporation, s*%ra, citin% Robern Develop.ent !orporation v. (ud%e ;uitain, s*%ra. &# -d., citin% M! n%ineerin%, Inc. v. National 8abor Relations !o..ission, #:& Phil. >:#, >&&0>&' ,&**:-, and 1abionAa v. !ourt of +ppeals, &'# S!R+ :4&, :420:43, :3 (ul) :44#. &$ Section 2, Rule ', Rules of !ourt. &> "ollo, 33034. &2 Torres v. SpecialiAed Pac/a%in% Develop.ent !orporation, s*%ra., citin% Paras v. 7aldado, 1.R. No. :#*2:', *3 March &**:, '$# S!R+ :#:, :#>.